Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

theorem4 writes to tell us that US Senators today unveiled legislation designed to empower cell phone customers across the nation by providing more protections and guaranteed options. "The Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007 will require wireless service providers to share simple, clear information on their services and charges with customers before they enter into long-term contracts; a thirty-day window in which to exit a contract without early termination fees; and greater flexibility to exit contracts with services that don't meet their needs."

That only works when the market is overflowing with "sellers". In a near-monopoly position people can be forced into much, MUCH worse conditions simply because they need the service and they can't get a deal that doesn't require pledging their first-born.

Technically true, but does not apply to this situation.Is there a monopoly for cell phones? What is the name of this monopoly carrier? Oh, there's more than one? And they compete against each other? Hmm.

I understand what you are saying, but there is no near-monopoly. It's not super expensive to get into the business band and set up a private repeater (a la, Cricket). I mean, sure, it's not hobbiest-level, but with minimal financial backing you could put a service up for your town, and then charge what

No, they don't. How do you compete over customers who are locked into contracts? Cell phone carriers collude, and it doesn't matter if it's complicit or implicit collusion. Each carrier has its own brands of phones, which are built to be incompatible with each others' networks, so that means the cell phone manufacturers are in on the deal as well. Because of the contract-subsidized discounts (it's really usury in disguise) on the locked-in phones, they can and do over

You could of course bitch about cellphone manufacturers not building multi-technology phones (GSM, CDMA, etc chipsets all in the same phone), but you'd have to take that up with the manufacturers, not the cellular network providers.

Random musing... I've wondered why the manufacturers haven't done that. Is it because the additional costs brought on by the non-compatible technologies would make the phone prices too high? Or could it be because they feel (or know) the carriers wouldn't sell them since they aren't locked to specific networks?

It's a couple of reasons. One of them is of course carriers would have a problem with it. Another reason is the cost (even if the additional cost is only $2-$5/unit, spread across a million units it adds up, and it may be a cost they can't pass along to the consumer making the phone even more expensive). A big reason though is both size and battery consumption. More chipsets within the device increases the size of the device as well as the current draw. I've been playing with the T-Mobile@Home service, wher

Markets are more efficient when information flows freely and is accurate.Cell phone companies apparently obscure the terms of service and costs, and consumers end up being less than ideally informed. Competition in the cell phone industry is also limited since spectrum is a limited resource, and the barriers to entry are high.

For contract phones, the companies tend to compete on features rather than costs, for example number of minutes, "friends and family." For the market segment of consumers that are c

Fraud is never capitalism. Fraud is a crime that frequently will not be investigated/prosecuted in the USA. USA capitalism ended shortly after the civil war. The USA economy for the last 50 to 100 years has been a government mandated corporatist-zombie. The accumulation of profits are very personal focused, reinvestment of profits decrease for more accounting/stock-scams (not development/expansion), and gains are protected by government protected closed corporate market shenanigans. The new law will provid

Capitalism is an economic model.Capitalism is market governed.Dogma is irrational emotional doctrine of cult/sect followers.So, capitalism cannot be dogma, but dogmatist can preach pseudo-capitalism as capitalism to faithful followers.Capitalism as an economic institution (model/architecture implemented) in a society/country is neither good or bad.Capitalism when market governed is a reasonable industrial age economics model (best, ?IDK?).Capitalism does not exist in a corporatist/plutocrat controlled total

"Must"? "Deserve"? These terms have no meaning when it comes to the free market.

Sure they do. A seller MUST represent the product honestly and the customer deserves to get what he paid for. That is also part of the free market and its enforcement is generally the one government intervention in the market that is generally accepted as a good idea.

In an age where so many cell providers routinely tack on unpredictable surcharges (you only find out about them on the first bill), lie about coverage, make a

In a truly free market the words "employee rights", "unions", "overtime" don't exist either. The government had to write laws to mandate all of those things because companies were screwing over everyone.

No, that's exactly how the textbook examples work.And if you are paying for cell service, you are contributing to this "problem". If it's still worth it to you to pay these prices for these services, then you are getting what you pay for.

If it isn't, cancel. Go without. A cell phone is not a NEED. FOOD is a need; a cell phone is a WANT.

For the record, two companies don't have to engage in collusion to screw you over on prices. It is entirely likely that they are both trying to screw you on prices indep

Agreed, except that being in a contract prevents this (or forces you to pay stiff penalties). Requiring more transparency in contracts and giving customers more options to cancel when the service doesn't meet their needs/expectations is fine by me.

You know, there is a solution to that: don't sign a long-term contract. You don't have to, after all. You won't get a free phone, of course, but they won't try to stop you.

Try that with ATT.
Call them up and tell them you already have a suitable phone and you want month to month service with no 2 year contract.
NOPE. Not available. Even without a phone subsidy. Except on a really overpriced prepaid service, that it.

I asked them what the 2 year contract was for if I wasn't getting a free or disco

That's odd- that's exactly how the Chinese wireless market is (2 providers, apparently Virgin Mobile was at one time scheduled to enter the market too but it never happened) but you don't see sky-high prices like in America, and prepaid users are treated essentially the same as postpaid users.

For example, China Mobile charges $.02/minute voice, $.01/text, and $.01/3KB. They also have package plans that work by deducting a set amount monthly from your prepaid account. I have one that gives me 20 minutes a

I intend to write my senators to oppose the bill, on the basis that it gives a stamp of approval to the whole idea of long term cell contracts: even if my cell provider provides perfectly good service, I should be able to drop them any time I feel like it, just like a landline phone. I can cancel a landline phone any time I want to, and the phone company has to cut the bill off based on the number of days of the month I actually had the phone line active. Why should a cellular provider be able to give me any less generous terms?

Many negative factors about the US cell phone system rely on the lengthy contracts or are caused by them: the US gets only the crappy phones the carriers choose to offer and not all the exciting phones sold in europe and japan, because in the US the carriers sell all the phones, because it's the excuse for the lengthy contracts. Indeed, the only really innovative phone to come along in the US is the iPhone, and even that is contractually tied to a single carrier. Also, in the US we have less technological advancement in the network itself because the carriers know you're locked in and can only use the phones they select, so they have less incentive to upgrade because you can't leave them and there's little competition if you could. Further, all the carriers have reputations for poor customer service and network reliability issues in some locations, and frankly they're also all reputed to not care very much, because they know that any customer churn they suffer will be replaced by incoming competitors fleeing the exact same problems from their "competitors".

If we eliminated the lengthy contracts, cell companies would lose their incentive to offer discounts on phones, and would likely choose to start charging full price for phones. This would likely result in a competitive market for equipment arising, resulting in more consumer choice. Further, carriers would then have to directly compete on plan prices and services, resulting in more consumer choice on plans, likely lower prices, and probably also the companies improving their network speed in an effort to actually compete with each other for a change. And of course, they'd have to start giving a damn about dropped calls instead of just blaming the customer, because the customer can actually drop them on the spot and go to someone else until they find someone who can actually give them reliable service.

So, I intend to write to my senators and tell them that if they really want to do any good in the cellular phone market, they should ban all cell phone contracts... or at least, ban all fees for breaking the contract, which would have essentially the same effect.

While I agree with you, keep in mind that in the US, there are a half dozen different kinds of cell phone technology. This causes 2 big problems, one, you can't take your Sprint Cell phone and move to T-Mobile service, because the phone won't work. And number 2, it is not cost effective to manufacture cheap, simple cell-phones in the US, because you would have to make several different types of the same phone. So the companies work closely with the cell-phone service companies, and develop the phones tha

It depends on which provider you're using, and which plan. Some providers will not offer service without a contract. Among those that do, I know for a fact that my provider will not offer certain plans without a contract. Now, think about that for a minute: that means that I have to commit to a year of being locked into that provider just so that I can have the privilige of... paying them money every month. And for that commitment, they give me... nothing special. And I paid full price for my own phone!So,

Europe really isn't all that different you know... We generally have lengthy contracts (though O2 in the UK recently offered a 1month notice contract, but you BringYourOwnPhone and it is an exception to the norm) - many are 18 or 24 months now, and the phones are offered free or at a big discount if you take these contracts. Termination fees apply if you are within the contract period just the same as in the US.

You can get monthly contracts if you don't need or want a "free" phone, the issue is that all the high street retail shops will try to push a phone plus contract deal (to the point where some of the third party suppliers will tell you its the only way to do it). If you call a given carrier and tell them you have a phone and want to use it on their network with terms similar to one of their contracts they will set it up for you.

I should be able to drop them any time I feel like it, just like a landline phone. I can cancel a landline phone any time I want to, and the phone company has to cut the bill off based on the number of days of the month I actually had the phone line active. Why should a cellular provider be able to give me any less generous terms?

Because unlike a land line, these days you most likely get a phone in the deal. The expense has to be covered. If you own your phone free and clear, I agree. Otherwise, they hav

... they have a right to make money like any other business, which includes recouping their investment in you as a customer.

Nobody, and I mean nobody has a right to make money in any sort of capitalistic market. The only right you have is the right to start your own business in that market if you can cover the costs of starting said business.

Nobody, and I mean nobody has a right to make money in any sort of capitalistic market.

That is of course, completely incorrect. Everybody has the right to make money when both parties agree to the terms up front. If you don't want him to make money, don't give him the right by signing the contract.

Is this, "I have no common sense or business knowledge day" on Slashdot or what? Shesh.

And when they have recouped their investment, how come I'm still locked in until the contract is up? Or do you think all phone values come in nice neat multiples of one or two years of profit margin?

And if I want out, why can't I just pay off the difference between the amount they have recouped and the discount they gave me on the phone? Why do I have to pay an outrageous fee (which is probably more than they paid for the phone in the first place) instead?

Because of the obvious answer, people are stupid. For years they moved away from contracts but the consumer pissed their pants waiting in lines to sign back up for stupid contracts. You're a victim of being surrounded by morons.

How much do you really think it costs for Motorola to make a phone in a plant in Mexico. $4? $6?

The phones are either subsidized very little or not at all. Walk into any Sprint store, how much do you think it costs to make those phones? Not the $180 or $249 they are trying to charge. Not even $30 for most.

The problem is the only place you can get a phone is from the carrier, the carriers keep a stranglehold on the equipment, and *pretend* they are subsidizing your phone. The *free phone* is re

How much do you really think it costs for Motorola to make a phone in a plant in Mexico. $4? $6?

Next, just wave your hand and admit you have no clue. You really think they can make a phone for $4? $6? Sure they abuse their position with their customers...but that hardly means they can magically make products for a small percentage of what the raw materials cost while completely ignoring the cost of design, software creation, testing, certification, packaging, training, documentation, and distribution.

How much do you really think it costs for Motorola to make a phone in a plant in Mexico. $4? $6?

Next, just wave your hand and admit you have no clue. You really think they can make a phone for $4? $6? Sure they abuse their position with their customers...but that hardly means they can magically make products for a small percentage of what the raw materials cost while completely ignoring the cost of design, software creation, testing, certification, packaging, training, documentation, and distribution. He

No, most people have no real alternative to buying their phones from their carrier.

We're in complete agreement then. Most phones cost $20-$40. I said $30, with an actual manufacturer cost of about $4 or $6.

This doesn't explain why phones priced at $180-$500 but they will give you a fake discount if you sign a 2 year contract is good for you or me. It's good for the carrier, sure. But it's not good for customers or the phone manufacturer.

Most phones cost $20-$40. I said $30, with an actual manufacturer cost of about $4 or $6.

This is completely untrue. Most phones in the US cost a hundred dollars on up to make, which ignores packaging, training, support, software development, certification, and distribution. Most phones are not disposable phones, especially when you look at phones used in other, non-US markets (Japan, Korea, Canada, most of Europe, etc). Disposable phones actually target a small percentage of the population but are espec

I have to disagree with you. Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. These are the same people that lease cars and trade up every 2 or 3 years.

Cell phone contracts used to be the only way the majority of people could afford a cell phone. This practice emerged from the days of mobile phones before cellular technology, which existed at least as far back as the 1950's although I don't know what all the terms were then. The first one I ever saw even used tubes (not transistors) inside a pair of large boxes installed in the trunk of a car. When cellular technology emerged, the phones were still fairly large and also expensive due to lack of economy of scale. That, of course, eventually changed.

The problem is, of course, the cell phone service providers still like the term contracts for many reasons I'm sure you are aware of. They try to make it hard for people to get phone service, or even phones, any other way.

But you can buy an unlocked cell phone even in the USA, and then sign up with the carrier of your choice. A friend of mine who works for a major cell phone service provider based on GSM [wikipedia.org] technology in the customer service inbound call center has told me that a fraction of a percent of customers are in fact monthly no-term customers using unlocked phones. They are trained not to offer such services, but do know how to sign people up if someone wants it. He also told me that it is a full price service that way, about as costly as a pre-paid phone.

You can find unlocked phones easily. For example at Amazon.Com, look at the left side of the home page under "Consumer Electronics" and click on that link. From that page of cell phones, on the left side find a whole subsection of links for unlocked phones. Be sure you get 850/1900 MHz phones for use in the USA and a few other countries in the Americas. If you want a phone good for international use, get a triband (850/1800/1900 for both USA bands) or quadband phone.

These phones are apparently overseas phones that may or may not come with a USA warranty. That's one of the problems in the USA is that the manufacturers are not selling directly to retailers here that I can find. It could help if we get wording added to this law change that requires the manufacturers to make their phones available to resellers that want to sell them a full price as no contract unlocked phones. Then people can have a choice.

Some other places to look for unlocked phones are here [cellular-blowout.com], here [puremobile.com], here [ustronics.com], here [cellhut.com], and here [cellularcountry.com].

You start out saying that contracts shouldn't be banned, and then every point after the first (contracts make financing a new phone simpler) is a problem caused by the ubiquity of contracts or tricks they use to force you into a contract. Delete the first paragraph and the remaining points are all good arguments for banning long-term cellphone contracts.

I still stand by my position that the term contracts should not be banned. Instead, the phone companies should be required to divulge that alternatives exist. And manufacturers need to be required to make the phones available to domestic resellers under standand warranty sale.

I don't want to take away one particular method of purchase. While that might speed up getting decent phone service for those that hate contracts (I being one of them), I'm opposed to the idea of taking away an option some people w

I would say a better option is to require all phones to come unlocked and use sim cards. Even a customer that is happy in a long term contract may have good reason to want to use it on more than one account, for example, a work account on weekdays and put the personal simcard in on nights and weekends. A customer that wants the cheap or free phone is free to enter into a long-term contract to get it. Customers that want to keep their old phone are free to do so with the sim card. Carriers should be required

Agreed. To achieve this, though, you have to be more subtle. Pass a law that says that the bill must clearly spell out the portion of the bill that is amortizing the cost of the phone over the contract period, and mandate that the monthly cost be reduced by that amount after the initial contract period unless the customer explicitly requests and receives a new phone.

Such a law would force the actual cost of the phone to be more obvious to the consumer and would cause a huge shift away from subsidized ph

I have to disagree with you. Contracts should not be banned. Some people even like those. They can get a new phone every couple years without paying a lot up front. These are the same people that lease cars and trade up every 2 or 3 years.

People like paying a small monthly fee instead of a single "large" payment, News at 11. Leasing a car is a pretty bad analogy for a start most people don't get them that way, opting for 3-6 year loans (an option not really available with cell phones). This is more like

1) Cell phones aren't usually terribly expensive. If you apply a $150 subsidy to a $200 phone over 24 months, that works out to about $6.25/month. Furthermore, not all phones are subsidized. Look at the iPhone for example. Why are people being roped in to a long term contracts with it? Simple: the cell phone companies want contracts and subsidies are just a convenient cover story.

They once were expensive, which is how it got started. It's just that the service providers aren't passing on all the savings

If you want fancy phones not offered by your carrier, Nokia has a few retail stores in NA where you can get whatever you want and with GSM networks, the service provider never has to hear about it or approve it.My current cell service provider offers free phones of comparable value to the sign-up model with each contract renewal - 1 year for low-end phone, 2 years for mid-range and 3 years for high-end. Open by-the-month contracts cost between $5 and $10 extra per month and you get neither subsidized phones

Do your unused minutes carry over to the next month? Does it include call-waiting, call forwarding, voice messaging, GPRS, text and roaming?

While my $10 prepaid plan is only 30 minutes, the unused part does carry over to the next month and I have all the services. My carrier also has $15 unlimited night&weekend and $20 unlimited incoming plans if I needed them. In all cases, unused package time carries over.

roaming is free, rollover is very yes, call waiting is yes, afaik no forewarding, voicemail is very yes, and the menus more responsive and less wasted time (minutes) than verizon, text is cheap (5c each way on new phones, mine is 3 out 0 in, and no on GPRS. the 150 card USED to be every 15 days but they boosted it to 30 and the $30 card to 60 then recently dropped the $15 card, so it's $30 every other month.

"Why should a cellular provider be able to give me any less generous terms?"You don't have to accept any terms you don't like. So what you are asking is, "why should I be allowed to accept bad terms?" And the answer is that you are a responsible adult who can make their own decisions. You don't need anyone else to protect you from your own stupidity because you aren't stupid.

If you want to accept some level of lock-in in exchange for a lower price, why should someone else prevent you from doing so?

Honestly, I think if people didn't have the option of getting a free or heavily discounted phone, you'd see cell prices drop rapidly from $400 down to the $100-200 range. The discounts seem to be a lot like the "SALE!" signs you see in stores that advertise the original price as being suggested retail, when no one ever charges suggested retail.

$100 is about £50, I'm sure i've seen new sim free phones that low in the uk. You won't get anything very fancy at that price but you will get a functional sim free phone. Getting a phone posted accross the pond can't be that expensive.

I don't know more polite way to put this, so I'm going to have to say it bluntly: Are you stupid or something?When a customer gets a phone for $0 with a 3 year contract, they're paying for that phone, in full: it raises the cost of the service. The cell companies are not financially incompetent. If they "give" you a phone, they're going to make sure their rate plan is correspondingly higher to ensure that they recoup that cost. And further, once they have recouped that cost, they're not going to lower the p

I agree with you to an extent, but I take exception to the "QUIT BEING CHEAP AMERICA!" Statement. It should be "QUIT BEING STUPID AMERICA!". The fact is, the argument that the phone companies need to recoup their costs, and thus put you under contract that requires you pay for the full price of the phone over time means that IT IS NOT A FEE PHONE. Thats right. If you are contractually obliged to pay for the whole phone through a service contract. It is not free.

Unfortunately, they use CDMA, which puts them out of touch with almost the entire world. Thus, you either end up with phones that can't be used outside the U.S. or you have to have two separate hardware radios---one for CDMA in the U.S., and one for GSM anywhere else on the planet.

I don't see what the big deal is with cell phone bills. They don't seem all that complex to me. The problems I've had with phone bills is six straight months where I had to spend hours each month on the phone, because they were double-billing me. Or the many months I had to deal with them where they kept adding services to my account that I specifically refused and asked not to have... and that they would add back again after I spent hours on the phone removing them. Or the two times they turned off my unlimited net access on my phone, causing me to rack up thousands of dollars in bills for what should have been a $20 unlimited fee.

None of these were due to the contract. These were all due to crappy business practices and nothing else.

There shouldn't be anything *deceiving* in a phone bill. I can certainly agree with that. But I don't see why they should be legally bound to make a phone bill read at a fifth grade level like the daily newspaper.

There shouldn't be anything *deceiving* in a phone bill. I can certainly agree with that. But I don't see why they should be legally bound to make a phone bill read at a fifth grade level like the daily newspaper.

The clearer and simpler the bill must be the harder it is to sweep the many errors under the rug. Complexity is sometimes used as a tool to commit "deception in plain sight". Considering that there's nothing in a cellphone bill that should require more than a 5th grade education to understand,

I've used prepaid for a few years, and a regular contract for the prior three years. I'm back to a paid plan now with Cingular. It's overpriced at $51/month ($39.99 plan plus taxes), and has by far the worst reception in all parts of the USA where I've traveled, but the rollover minutes are compelling, especially for someone like myself who doesn't live on the phone, and my mother and gf both are on Cingular, so I talk to them for free. Prepaid is good too, if you don't live on the phone, but people do g

I looked around a bit and went with T-Mobile. If you can tolerate a bit of up-front cost, you can get a phone for about $80 (phone price + $35 activation fee) and spend $100 to get 1000 prepaid minutes that don't expire for a year (if you put less on there, the minutes expire in 3 months). I got a Motorola v195, which no longer appears on their site, but it's a quad-band GSM - so I could use it worldwide. And T-mobile will unlock a prepaid phone on request after 3 months of use. (I don't work for them,

It is not $39.99 + $11.01 in taxes. If you look carefully at your bill, you'll find that there are a few fees that look like they go to the government, and may even have words like "federal" in there somewhere, but if you actually talk to your provider you'll find that they are, in fact,(sometimes federally mandated) costs of doing business.In other words, they are presenting as fees things that should have been folded into the advertised price.

I'll be visiting the US from Canada soon and I have a pay-per-minute cell phone plan (I don't use enough minutes per month to justify a monthly plan). How bad are roaming charges in the US? I've heard nightmare stories of people getting billed ridiculous amounts of money per call when travelling. Is this just FUD or should I just turn the thing off until I need it?

Why are you directing your call to what I assume are American Slashdotters? You need to contact your carrier in Canada and ask them what the charges are when using your phone in the United States.You mention that you are on a pay as you go plan. I looked up the various roaming charges while in the United States for you:

Rogers Pay as You Go and Fido pre-paid:

Calls Back to Canada from the U.S. $2.49 per minuteCalls within the U.S. while in the U.S. (local and long distance calls) $2.49 per minuteIncoming call

I did try to ask my provider (it's a major one), waited for too long for an answer (we're transferring you now.......CLICK), and gave up. Perhaps customer service is not a priority for those not paying monthly or maybe it was just a really busy day for CSRs. Then I called my ex-wife, who used to work for the cell phone company in question, and she told me to fuck off (I guess I should have expected that).

I was hoping for some feedback/personal experience from Canadians that have roamed in the US. There m

Merci. It's not like I can't afford the extra cost, I just don't want to get screwed and encourage them. People need to start asking more questions about cell phone services and costs. I suspect that too many just accept what they're offered and I resent the liberties that the cell phone companies take.

I know it's Saturday AM, but now (I just tried three times) I'm getting bounced around from automated service to automated service only to find out that "our offices are open Mond...".

Really and truly not trying to be a jerk, but wouldn't you try calling your service provider with those same questions to get an at least semi-accurate answer?Disclaimer:I do not use/own, or have in my presence a cell phone- I do not really know Jack about this subject, but was just curious.

Hhmm?...There are the 'buy some minutes' type solutions for most of the mainstream service providers...ie: AT&T, NetZero, Xingular, etc... at least in Oklahoma...If we have it, surely it is already thriving everywhe

I'll be visiting the US from Canada soon and I have a pay-per-minute cell phone plan (I don't use enough minutes per month to justify a monthly plan). How bad are roaming charges in the US? I've heard nightmare stories of people getting billed ridiculous amounts of money per call when travelling. Is this just FUD or should I just turn the thing off until I need it?

I have no idea how it works in Canada/USA. But I can tell you that in Europe, you have to very careful if you have an answering service in your

All providers do it that way. It only happens if you use conditional call diversion: You're in a foreign country, your cellphone rings and you don't answer it (or you reject the call or the phone is off), the call is diverted (back) to your mailbox, you pay roaming charges for "receiving" the call in the foreign country and for diverting the call back to your home country. Yes, it's a trap. It's particularly dangerous for people who live close to a border where the phone often switches to the foreign networ

Nightmarish. Make sure you read all the small print - usually if you dig enough you can find the full description of fees in the middle of some contract on their web site. If you've got a GSM phone, you can ask the carrier to unlock it for you and then just get a prepaid SIM in the US. It'll probably be much cheaper in the long run. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your phone is on and a call goes through to it - even if you don't answer it, you'll be charged for that call. That was a fun charge to

WTF are you talking to for 1200 minutes, that's 20 hours a month on the phone??!?

I used to think that as well, until recently when I started burning over 1000 minutes per month, and don't consider myself a phone junkie. 1200 minutes per month is about 40 minutes per day; if your cellphone is your only line, your usage will add up fast, esp. if your family and friends don't use instant messaging.

Much like a nickel here and a dime there adds up to real money over time, cell phone use does the same thing.

"Fees" aren't the same as taxes. Think about what "regulatory cost recovery charge (as seen on my ATT Wireless bill)" means: the carrier incurred an extra expense to implement something required by the government (emergency service support, rural location service, etc.). Whether you like the regulations or not, the cell phone providers should include them in their base price - they're part of the cost of doing business, after all.

How many people actually read the contracts? I actually read my entire contract and understand it, and have nothing to complain about. People need to actually read and understand their current contracts beofre they can complain about them.

The complaint is that no matter what service you pick, you have to sign a contract. Consumers have no choice (in America, not true in the UK), because EVERY company uses the exact same contract model. People don't read the contracts because they are all basically the same...x minutes...x data...blah blah blah...eight million dollars to cancel early...small print...blah...legalese....blah.

My coworker switched phone companies and didn't get a chance to try the new phone from home for the three days window they give you (can't remember why but he had a good reason). Guess what, it turns out he didn't have any service in his house, as in zero bars. He wrangled with them for weeks but in the end he had to pay cancellation fees.That's the problem with the buyer beware libertarian crowd. What if the buyer is not a trained lawyer and does not understand every small print clause in every contract fo

One of the standard arguments against Libertarian philosophy, and especially that section of it embraced by many neo-conservative groups is that a lot of the time it ends up merely being an excuse for those who want to prey on the weak.

This isn't about limiting what can be put in a contract; this is about rqeuiring everything to be in clear, straightforward language, rather than intentionally confusing and overcomplicated language. Just thought I would clarify that for you.

You realize that, in the example you gave, it was your friend's inaction that caused him to have to pay the cancellation fees? He decided that he had other priorities during those three days. Fine. But if he decided that he had more important things to do than test his cellphone (something that takes 20 seconds), then he should be prepared to deal with the consequences (either no service, or a cancellation fee.)

But that's not the real problem. The real reason that the US cellphone market SUCKS is the

That sounds like the ETF exactly covers their losses. You don't honestly believe that your provider pays retail price for handsets, do you?This is the problem with early termination fees. They are exactly priced to ensure that the cellular provider doesn't suffer a loss. That's perfectly fine and reasonable for people who take subsidized phones. However, when I bring my own phone to a provider and pay an activation fee (which would be waived if I bought a phone from them), and THEN they still try to cha

Seriously, can you think of any other service industry like this? power, cable, phone, trash pickup, isp, hosting provider, magazine subscription,...

Sure, sometimes you'll see a special rate that only applies if you continue the service for a fixed period, but why is that you cannot get cell service at all without the contract? (Well, I suppose there are those shitty prepaid networks.)

I would personally offer service without a contract to anyone willing to pay $1,000,000/month. That's not the point. The point is that for a person who uses their phone semi-regularly, the cost of a non-contract service is much higher than contract service, which is way overpriced anyway. The current prices are not what people are willing to pay, but HAVE to pay. This is not a free market. Consider the effect Google's info number 1-800-GOOG-411 (or text info: "GOOGL") have on the $2 usually charged for

There's an old saying in D.C. that an "act" -The cellphone empowerment whatever whatever funny acronym ACT- usually means the opposite of whatever it claims in the title.

The Patriot Act took away things the patriots fought for, the tax freedom act put in more restraints and took away freedoms, and so on. If they had a "Save the babies act" it would probably involve NOT saving them. Seriously, it's THAT bad.

So when you hear about some new act, assume it's out to get you somehow and respond accordingly.

I may sound cynical (though where the Congress is concerned, is that possible?), but how many here wonder whether or not a Congressman/woman or someone from his/her immediate family was recently jacked up on cell phone charges? Forgive me, but I am always somewhat suspicious when legislation is suddenly introduced to allegedly empower consumers given the amount of money it truly takes to lobby the Congress to get anything done these days.

Wake me up when I can have cell phone service like I had when I lived in England, otherwise, this is a bunch of posturing by politicians wanting to look hip. There are a few industries in America (telecomunications, cable television, for example) with such messed up business models, yet strong monopolistic locks, it just angers me to no end. Once business gets this far out of control (or actually IN control, but so much so, they are out of control) it is time to regulate. I don't mind lock-in, as long as

The telecommunications lobby in this country is huge and I guarrantee that the bill will be defeated. Anyway, as is prototypical of politics these days, the bill is only half-assed concieved. A contract usually implies a guarrantee of minimum service level. What about when the Sprint, ATT, and T-Mobile's of the worlds service works great for thirty days and all of a sudden quality drops off sharply? I am sure this has happened before. Shouldn't you have a right to kick the provider to the curb if this

How about we make cell branding and locking illegal?How about exclusive contracts cell manufacturers and service providers illegal?How about we make disabling features on the cell phone you paid for unless you ransom it back from your service provider illegal? (Verizon Bluetooth OBEX transfer, anyone? Using your phone as a DUN connection for your laptop?)

The reason the North American cell industry sucks so much is because manufacturers and service providers are working too closely together and nerfing our phones for the purpose of shaking more change out of our pockets. Implementing the above would bring us in line with how everyone else in the world does things. The bill in TFA is a joke. Congress is stroking it, as usual.

i guess that depends on which end of the market is free. in my opinion, there seem to be 2 kinds of "free" markets. one where the company(ies) are free (no regulation) and one where the consumer is free (your efficient market), which requires either regulation or *active* competition.

There's also the used phone option. eBay has a very active market in used cell phones at quite reasonable prices.Anybody here remember when AT&T was forced to allow its customers to buy their own equipment and attach it to the landline network? What do you supposed happened? That's right, the cost of the terminal equipment plunged, and the variety of devices offered increased, as new competitors entered the market. Why the same logic doesn't apply to the regulation of cell phones escapes me.